Allowed

C.v.Ahamed Kutty (died), 2. C.V. Alavi Kutty v. S.Ramalingam (died), 2. S.Rajendran

Madras HC13 Sept 2024CMP(MD)/8997/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a civil miscellaneous petition to correct a typographical error in an appeal decree where property item numbers were erroneously stated as 23 to 26 instead of the previously amended 19 to 22.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and the items of properties in the judgment and decree were amended from Nos.23 to 26 to Nos.19 to 22.

C.v.Ahamed Kutty (died), 2. C.V. Alavi Kutty Vs… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

¶3

Friday, the Thirteenth day of September Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P. DHANABAL

¶4

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024 in

¶5

AS NO.703 of 1992

¶6

C.V.Ahamed Kutty (Died)

¶7

C.V.Alavi Kutty

¶8

Kunju Koyambu (Died)

¶9

Fathima Kutty

¶10

Abdul Khader

¶11

Faizal

¶12

Abida

¶13

Shaharabanu

¶14

Iyyathumma (Died)

¶15

Ayisha Beevi

¶16

Fathima

¶17

Sainaba

¶18

Muhammed Ashraf

¶19

Muhammed Basheer

¶20

...Petitioners/Appellants

¶21

¶22

1 S.Ramalingam (Died)

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

1/11

¶25

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

¶26

2 S. Rajendran

¶27

3 Sengamala Servai Died

¶28

4 Rengasamy Servai Died

¶29

5 Sathiamurthy ( Died)

¶30

6 Govindammal ( Died)

¶31

7 Perumalsamy Naidu ( Died)

¶32

8 Chinnathambi

¶33

9 Kottaisamy Naidu

¶34

10 Lakshmi

¶35

11 Kaliaperumal

¶36

12 Soundarajan

¶37

13 Arumugam

¶38

14 Selvi. Pushpam ( Died)

¶39

15 Tmt. Mariammal

¶40

16 Tmt. Nagarathinam

¶41

17 Tmt. Tamilarasi( Died) 18 Mahalingam ( Died)

¶42

19 Mahadevan ( Died)

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

2/11

¶45

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

20 Ganesan

21 Gowri

22 Manikandan

23 Geetha

24 Manoharan ( Died) 25 Thilagavathi

26 Valarmathi

27 Ayyappan( Died)

28 Revathi

29 Kalaiselvi

30 Nanthakumar

31 Lalitha

32 Ashwanth

33 Ashwanth

34 Kalarani 35 Sakthi Prakash

¶60

36 Nithish Kumar

¶61

37 Indhira

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

3/11

¶64

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

38 R. Shivakumar

39 R. Subha

40 R. Agalya

41 R. Kumaran

42 Agilandam

43 Jeya

44 Rajam

45 Susila

46 Rajeswari ( Died)

47 Navaneetham

48 Meenakshi

49 Pattammal( Died)

50 Prema

51 Sampasivam

52 Ambikapathi (Died)

53 Karuppaiah

54 Muthukumar

55 Karthikeyan

56 Indhiragandhi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶85

4/11

¶86

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

¶87

57 Muthulakshmi

¶88

58 Muthukumar

¶89

59 Nagalakshmi 60 Kalpana

61 Indhumathi

62 Alagaresan

63 Shanmugapriya

64 Rakshana

65 Nethra

... Respondents/Respondents

¶96

Prayer :-

¶97

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 151 of CPC to amend the schedule of properties as 19 to 22 instead of 23 to 26 mentioned in the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 703 of 1992 dated 21.06.2024 and thus render justice.

¶98

PRAYER: The Appeal Suit is filed under under Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgement and decree of the Subordinate Court, Tanjore in O.S.No. 26 of 1984 dated 07.10.1991 in so far as it relates to the appellants suit items 19 to 22.

¶99

ORDER:- This Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶100

5/11

¶101

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

¶102

Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate for Mr.S.Thilagavathi, Advocate for the 2^nd Petitioner and of Mr.J.Barathan, Advocate for Mr.I.Velpradeep, Advocate for the 4^th to 8^th petitioners , and of Mr.A.S.Mohammed Manzoor, Advocate for the 10^th to 14^th petitioners and of Mr.A.Senthil Kumar , Advocate for the 2^nd Respondent and of Mr.P.Vadivel, Advocate for the 15^th and 16^th Respondents and of Mr.T.Selvan, Advocate for the 21^st to 23^rd , and 31^st to 36^th Respondents and of Mr.V.Ragavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.H.Thayymanasamy , Advocate for the 37^th to 41 Respondents and of Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocte for the 42, 44, 48, 50, 51, 53 to 55, 59 to 62 Respondents and of Mr.K.Kuppusamy, Advocate for the 43 and 47^th Respondents and of Mr.K.Guhan, Advocate for the 45^th Respondents this Court made the following order:

¶103

This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners/ appellants/defendant No.10 and the legal heirs of defendants 9 and 11 seeking to amend the schedule of properties in the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.703 of 1992 dated 21.6.2024 as item Nos.19 to 22 instead of item Nos.23 to 26.

¶104

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶105

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the fourth petitioner

¶106

herein is the fourth appellant in the main appeal. In the year 2017, when the said appeal was taken up for final hearing, the petitioners came to know that in the grounds of appeal, the schedule of properties were wrongly described as item

¶107

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶108

6/11

¶109

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

¶110

Nos.23 to 26. Actually, the claim of the appellants is only with regard to item Nos.19 to 22. But, unfortunately, the schedule of properties were wrongly described as item Nos.23 to 26. Therefore, earlier, they filed C.M.P.(MD) No.2295 of 2018 to amend the items of properties as item Nos.19 to 22 instead of item Nos.23 to 26 and the same was allowed on 07.6.2023. Thereafter, this Court allowed the main appeal namely A.S.No.703 of 1992 through judgment and decree dated 21.6.2024. In the said judgment dated 21.6.2024, the items of properties were inadvertently mentioned as item Nos.23 to 26 instead of Item Nos.19 to 22. Hence, the petitioners filed the present petition seeking to correct the typographical error that has crept in in the judgment and decree. No prejudice would be caused to the other side by allowing this miscellaneous petition.

¶111

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioners have not amended the original plaint and the appeal memorandum, that now, they sought for amendment only in respect of judgment and decree of this Court dated 21.6.2024 passed in A.S.No.703 of 1992 and that the present miscellaneous petition is not maintainable without amending the original plaint and the appeal memorandum. Hence the miscellaneous petition may be dismissed.

¶112

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶113

7/11

¶114

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

¶115

placed relied on the following judgments of the Supreme Court in :

¶116

"i. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Imtiaz Hussain [2006-I-LLJ 714 ]

¶117

ii. State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Singh [2004 (1) SCC 328] iii. Dwarka Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another [AIR 1999 SC 1031]."

¶118

This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶119

Upon hearing both sides and perusing the records, the point for determination in this miscellaneous petition is whether this petition has to be allowed or not.

¶120

This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to amend the items of properties in the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 21.6.2024 in A.S.No.703 of 1992. This Court, while passing the judgment, mentioned the items of properties as item Nos.23 to 26 instead of item Nos.19 to 22. In fact, the items of properties have already been amended as Item Nos.19 to 22 as per order of this Court dated 07.6.2023 in C.M.P. (MD) No.2295 of 2018. However, the respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶121

8/11

¶122

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

¶123

objected to allow the present miscellaneous petition alleging that without amending the schedule of properties in the trial court pleadings and in the original plaint, this petition is not maintainable.

¶124

As per the order of this Court in C.M.P.(MD) No.2295 of 2018 in A.S.No.703 of 1992 dated 07.6.2023, the items of properties mentioned as item Nos.23 to 26 have been amended as item Nos.19 to 22. Even after that, this Court without perusing the amendment, inadvertently in the appeal judgment marked the properties as item Nos.23 to 26 instead of item Nos.19 to 22. Therefore, the said suit item numbers recorded in the appeal judgment in A.S. No.703 of 1992 dated 21.06.2024 are only due to the typographical error and the same are to be amended.

¶125

As above stated, this Court had already ordered to amend the items of properties as item Nos.19 to 22. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the present miscellaneous petition has to be allowed and no prejudice would be caused to the other side if the present petition is allowed. Further, the respondents have not raised any serious objections while allowing the petition in C.M.P.(MD) No.2295 of 2018 on 07.6.2023 to amend the items of properties in the grounds of appeal in A.S.No.703 of 1992. Moreover the respondents have not filed any appeal as against https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶126

9/11

¶127

CMP(MD). No.8997 of 2024

¶128

the said order dated 07.6.2023 in C.M.P.(MD) No.2295 of 2018. Hence, as per the above said order of this Court, the items of properties have been amended as item Nos.19 to 22. In the above said circumstances, it is appropriate to allow this petition.

¶129

As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, they will not applicable to the facts of the present case, because the schedule of properties and the memorandum of appeal were already amended as per the order of this Court.

¶130